Video games are free speech

[Ack]

The California bill's author, Leland Yee, told reporters today he was very disappointed. The Supreme Court has "decided that it is going to side with corporate America and Wal-Mart against our children," he said.

This guy's an asshole, wow.

Of course he's going to say things like that. This guy's been working to pass anti-game legislation in California for nearly a decade. He'll harp on anything he can to criticize his opposition.

[yomomma1]

Is walmart a big video game seller? He keeps mentioning them, but I don't really think they sell the majority of video games in America.

[jfrost]

The children argument was already disposed of by Carlin, right? It sucks that they keep rehashing old bullshit.

[saturnfan]

This case as always somewhat confused me, although to be fair I have never looked at it in any real depth. What I fail to understand is that I always thought it was a crime to sell rated R/NC-17 movies to minors and/or allow them entrance into films that are rated R/NC-17. So how is that different from disallowing minors from purchasing adult themed video games and in what way is that a restriction of free speech, given the clear precedent?

Additionally, how and why was Wal-Mart on the winning end of the supreme courts decision? They already have a company policy of restricting the sale of M-rated games to minors, and so does Gamestop and I am sure many others. I don’t see how cooperate interests were served, most of them were already restricting sales.

Lastly, I am glad that video games won since I am against almost all product and service regulation as well as perceived moral legislation. But I am still failing to see some of the major aspects of the case.

[MrPopo]

This case as always somewhat confused me, although to be fair I have never looked at it in any real depth. What I fail to understand is that I always thought it was a crime to sell rated R/NC-17 movies to minors and/or allow them entrance into films that are rated R/NC-17. So how is that different from disallowing minors from purchasing adult themed video games and in what way is that a restriction of free speech, given the clear precedent?

That's just it. It's not a crime to perform either of those activities. It's against corporate policy, but if I sell a 6 year old a ticket for an R-rated movie the police have nothing against me.

Additionally, how and why was Wal-Mart on the winning end of the supreme courts decision? They already have a company policy of restricting the sale of M-rated games to minors, and so does Gamestop and I am sure many others. I don’t see how cooperate interests were served, most of them were already restricting sales.

You're forgetting this is in the la-la land of a politician. His law would have made it explicitly illegal, so now that Wal-Mart is allowed to sell the games to kids it must mean that they're going to do so. After all, no companies actually would have a policy to not sell stuff like that to minors, right?

Lastly, I am glad that video games won since I am against almost all product and service regulation as well as perceived moral legislation. But I am still failing to see some of the major aspects of the case.

The biggest thing is that video games are considered to be protected by the 1st amendment the same way books and movies are. We all assumed that was the case, but now we have legal precedent from the highest court in the land. This makes it much easier to block future legislation of this type. And it means that a game developer is free to create whatever he wants (without falling under the Miller Test) and not have to worry about prosecution.

[Hatta]

This case as always somewhat confused me, although to be fair I have never looked at it in any real depth. What I fail to understand is that I always thought it was a crime to sell rated R/NC-17 movies to minors and/or allow them entrance into films that are rated R/NC-17. So how is that different from disallowing minors from purchasing adult themed video games and in what way is that a restriction of free speech, given the clear precedent?

R movies are not illegal for kids. The MPAA ratings are an industry agreement, nothing more. They seem to be working ok, which is one big argument against enforcing video game ratings in law.

Pornography is different, it has a specific exemption carved out of the first amendment by the Supreme Court. In reality, there is no exemption in the Constitution, so the "Miller test" amounts to new law created from whole cloth by the Supreme Court. This really is legislating from the bench, and one of the most blatant examples of "activist judges".

Anyone who can read English can read the constitution and see that there is no exemption for obscenity. If anyone thinks there should be, we have a process for amending the Constitution. But I guess it's easier for the government to simply ignore it. (hey guess what, I'm going to ignore laws too! If the Supreme Court can't even follow the law, why should I?)

Additionally, how and why was Wal-Mart on the winning end of the supreme courts decision? They already have a company policy of restricting the sale of M-rated games to minors, and so does Gamestop and I am sure many others. I don’t see how cooperate interests were served, most of them were already restricting sales.

Sure, but Wal-Mart and GameStop don't always have the most reliable employees. The last thing they want are "illegal video game stings" against their employees, much the way there are under age booze stings against liquor stores.

[AppleQueso]

Pornography is different, it has a specific exemption carved out of the first amendment by the Supreme Court. In reality, there is no exemption in the Constitution, so the "Miller test" amounts to new law created from whole cloth by the Supreme Court. This really is legislating from the bench, and one of the most blatant examples of "activist judges".

That little obscenity law is so rarely actually used it might as well not even exist, thankfully.

[MrPopo]

Pornography is different, it has a specific exemption carved out of the first amendment by the Supreme Court. In reality, there is no exemption in the Constitution, so the "Miller test" amounts to new law created from whole cloth by the Supreme Court. This really is legislating from the bench, and one of the most blatant examples of "activist judges".

That little obscenity law is so rarely actually used it might as well not even exist, thankfully.

Thanks to it being so incredibly vague that it's easy to find someone who doesn't find it offensive in at least one of the three categories.

[Hatta]

Tell that to Max Hardcore. Dude's in jail on obscenity charges. I'm no fan, but if the First Amendment can protect the Phelps, it should protect him too.

[AppleQueso]

The fact that "Obscenity" is something you can be jailed for is just baffling to me.

I could maybe understand a fine (even if that would be pretty stupid too) but jail time is just ridiculous.